- From: イアンフェッティ <ifette@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 11:25:54 -0700
- To: Kevin Smith <kevsmith@adobe.com>
- Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org Group WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAF4kx8f6jyH-r=MwVjayk2uR5+=2vveMiFP+8fgO3uctAN0QOg@mail.gmail.com>
+1 On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Kevin Smith <kevsmith@adobe.com> wrote: > Is this entirely to meet European requirements, because it sounds like > there is still some debate among those well versed in European law as to > whether this will help. From a logical standpoint, I still maintain this > makes no sense at all. Why would we assume the user would trust the 3rdparty who they don’t know, more than the 1 > st party who they do? If transitive trust is adequate for a 3rd party, > it surely should be for the 1st party. I still believe this has almost > all of the negatives of explicit/explicit (cost and complexity), without > many of the benefits (aside from the fact that this is at least more > technically feasible)**** > > ** ** > > *Kevin Smith* | Engineering Manager | Adobe | 385.221.1288 | > kevsmith@adobe.com**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) [mailto:ifette@google.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 09, 2012 9:37 AM > *To:* public-tracking@w3.org Group WG > *Subject:* Transitive third party exceptions**** > > ** ** > > This is meant to satisfy ACTION-194 and is a proposal for transitive third > party exceptions. I'm not sure if it's necessary if we restrict things to > "first-party/*" but if you want to list out "first-party/third-party" > explicit/explicit exceptions, I believe it would be necessary for things > like advertising networks to function.**** > > ** ** > > "If a third party has been granted an exception on a page, then any > resources fetched by that third party, including items such as images > included by that third party, content dynamically fetched by that third > party, or another third party that is redirected to (such as via an HTTP > 302 status code) are considered to be covered by that exception. This > applies transitively, meaning that if in a given context "Site A" is a > third party and has an exception, if it redirects to "Site B" then "Site B" > is covered by that exception, as would "Site C" if "Site B" either included > content from or redirected to "Site C".**** > > ** ** > > -Ian**** >
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 18:26:24 UTC